Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (7285)	7/25/2007 12:34:54 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Thompson PAC coddles son By Dick Morris & Eileen Mc Gann jewishworldreview.com \| What did Fred Thompson's son, Daniel, do to earn the more than $170,000 that his firm, Daniel Thompson Associates, was paid from his father's federal political action committee, the Fred D. Thompson PAC? The records suggest he did next to nothing. The elder Thompson, an undeclared presidential candidate, left the Senate at the start of 2003. He started The Fred D. Thompson PAC with $378,601 transferred from his senatorial campaign committee. It's perfectly legal for a former public official to roll leftover campaign funds over to a PAC and use that money to support candidates. Yet very little of these funds actually went to candidates - the bulk of the money was paid to Daniel Thompson. Daniel Thompson did not reply to efforts to contact him. From the month the PAC started (April 2003), Daniel Thompson Associates began drawing a monthly retainer of $4,000 for "management consultant services." In its first election cycle, the PAC made a total of only $18,000 in contributions to federal candidates and about $8,000 in contributions to Republican committees and non-federal candidates. So, the fund spent about 7 percent of its assets on candidates and elections in its first two years - and about 25 percent on Thompson's son. The next cycle (2005-2006), the fund gave $21,200 to federal candidates and about $27,500 to non-federal candidates and party committees — and $84,000 to Daniel Thompson's firm. To date, the PAC has paid $176,000 to the son's firm, $46,000 for federal races, $35,000 in other political donations and $62,700 to charity. The senator's son, in other words, accounts for more than half the outlays. PAC funds can be used to hire relatives. In 2001, the Federal Election Commission ruled that Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. could use federal campaign funds to hire his wife as his campaign manager. But Mrs. Jackson was experienced in running campaigns and raising funds and had worked on a congressional staff. It clearly wasn't a no-show job. The FEC ruled that a campaign could hire a family member "at market value for bona fide campaign services." But it's hard to find any evidence of bona fide work done by Daniel Thompson Associates for his father's PAC. Presumably, Fred Thompson made the decision about what money would go to candidates - especially since many of them were his former colleagues. Maybe Daniel Thompson wrote the 20 checks a year that the PAC mailed out. How much time or skill could that take? Not $85,000 a year worth. The PAC appears to have had no office, no phone and no employees other than Daniel Thompson. Minor amounts went for spot telephone and Internet bills, and for an accountant. And the PAC did no real fund-raising. In its four years, it raised just $700 - two contributions from former Fred Thompson associates. All other income appears to have been interest payments. The fund did pay a nearly $7,000 to Aristotle Publishing, a company that licenses software for Internet fund-raising, including a $1,000 licensing fee in the fund's last days several months ago. The initial fees were for "conversion, training, and support." Interestingly enough, Daniel Thompson is now a professional fund-raiser for Lawson Associates in Nashville. According to the firm's Web site, he consults with clients all over the country to raise funds for non-profit groups in their capital and endowment campaigns. Too bad he couldn't help Dad raise money, too jewishworldreview.com

To: calgal who wrote (7285)	7/31/2007 12:47:44 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Democratic Debate Comments By Tony Blankley Wednesday, July 25, 2007 Send an email to Tony Blankley Email It Print It Take Action Read Article & Comments (20) Trackbacks Post Your Comments Just as our troops are fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to face them here at home, I watched the Democratic Party presidential debate on Monday so you wouldn't need to let those egregious people into your own living rooms. (Although, obviously, our troops in Iraq face deadly duty, while I only face deadly dull duty.) But I did learn a few things. For the first time Monday, CNN provided us with sustained close-up shots of Sen. John Edwards' haircut, and I can now understand why he paid between $400-$1,200 a cut. At middle range, it looks deceptively like your average $18 strip-mall haircut. And it seems to look the same from the left side of his face. In this video frame grab taken from CNN television, a YouTube contributor identified Davis Fleetwood from Groton, Mass. poses a question to the Democratic presidential hopefuls on stage at the Citadel in Charleston, S.C. Monday July 23, 2007. (AP Photo/CNN) Related Media: VIDEO: Q-and-A: CNN, YouTube Debate Discussed VIDEO: Youtube Questions Demand Answers VIDEO: 'Voter-Generated' Debate But the close up from his right side is a revelation. Girding the long side of his part is an extraordinary spring-like wedge of hair running from front to back. And though bouncy, every hair remains in place -- even during vigorous head shaking and bobbing. This gives his entire hairstyle a lively, youthful look. Most middle-aged men's hair just sits on the head like a wet rag. Admittedly, the bouncy wedge does look a little flouncy when viewed from the candidate's front right. But from any other angle and from all distances other than close up, it simply gives his entire visage a healthy, animated look. Well worth a thousand bucks a crack -- at least in his part of the two Americas. However, in Edwards' only memorable comment of the night, he rather put his foot into it. Each of the candidates was asked to describe something he or she approves of and something he or she disapproves of regarding the candidate to the left. Sen. Hillary Clinton was to Edwards' left, and he expressed disapproval of her pink (or, perhaps, coral) sweater. The questioner was clearly looking for policy disagreements, so Edward's reflexive comment on her appearance rather reminded the audience of his reputation for excessive concern with matters of grooming. It also was suggestive of his inner sexism (despite his wife's claim that her husband is better than Hillary for the fairer sex) as he would hardly have commented on a male candidate's suit jacket. Given Edwards' essential vacuity (tempered by his instinct for southern populist demagogy), he will test how far he can make his way on Arthur Miller's "smile and a shoe shine." Most of the rest of the debate involved the candidates showing little genuine emotion or conviction and no new ideas. Questions about healthcare were handled with outrage at President George Bush and a total evasion of the challenges of actual cost controls (Medicare, for example, is unfunded through 2070 to the sum of 40 trillion dollars or more). When one questioner asked the candidates whether they would cut benefits or raise taxes, they all agreed that neither was really necessary. Although, admittedly, Obama looked far more sincere as he emoted about the terrible problem than did the others. Only one issue evoked genuine passion, and that was: How quickly would you retreat from Iraq? And here, the candidates had clearly been doing earnest research before the debate. Gov. Bill Richardson said he could get all the troops out in five months. Sen. Christopher Dodd claimed he could do it in seven months, while Sen. Joe Biden was insistent that it would take a full nine months to a year to move American troops and civilians down the two-lane road through Basra to the sea. continued... townhall.com